There are few historical parallels of great power rivals as deeply integrated as the United States and China. They have the world’s two largest economies; they are the world’s largest military spenders; and they both are increasingly in competition with each other. As the world’s two largest exporters, their two-way trade exceeded $750 billion in 2022, even as commercial ties frayed and (not coincidentally) the multilateral trading system came under deep stress.

Indeed, on issue after issue—from AI to social media and from Taiwan to Ukraine—sharp differences in values and interests create friction between Washington and Beijing. These frictions will play out in how we trade; how our technological ecosystems interact; and how we manage military competition. At the same time, U.S.-China relations cannot and should not be based solely on competition. On a range of critical issues—from climate change to illegal narcotics—cooperation will have tangible benefits for Americans and, often, for people in China and the rest of the world.

The principles behind a sound China policy

Smart U.S. policy toward China needs to be based on principles that align with the interests of people and the values of our system. As Washington formulates our approach to competition with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), we should look to policies that are:

• Progressive: Our policy should advance the interests of ordinary Americans by improving their opportunities, wages and working conditions and reducing the risk of conflict and military involvement abroad—burdens of which they would disproportionately bear.
• Principled: We should have confidence in our values and be forthright in speaking when China violates basic human rights. We should not try—and would fail if we did—to emulate the fear and coercion that are the hallmarks of autocrats. We will succeed by being better Americans, at home and abroad.
• Pragmatic: China does many things at home; around the world; and in its relations with the United States that don’t align with our values or are contrary to our interests. But the United States has limited time, attention, and money, so we have to focus on the truly vital. No matter its provenance or pedigree, if a policy has not worked, we should do something else.
  Farsighted: Our children would not forgive us if our approach to China results in a world devastated by climate change or war; U.S. workers immiserated by a race-to-bottom economics; or American values eroded by racism or undemocratic actions.
• Collaborative: Our partners around the world are a major source of American strength. Sustaining that influence requires that we listen to their views, understand their needs, and take into account their concerns.
• Evidence-based: The United States should base our policies on facts rather than fear, hope, or ideological assumptions.
• Humble: Humility about the limits of American power is a hedge against unsustainable commitments abroad. The United States spent 20 years, a trillion dollars, and more than 2,000 American lives in Afghanistan and had little impact on its direction. We have far less influence on China. The United States brings its strongest influence to itself, so that is where we should focus our energies and our resources.

Recurring themes

The extraordinary breadth of the U.S.-China agenda means policymakers need a wide range of tools to respond. But certain themes run through each of the eight baskets:

• U.S. work starts at home. If we are serious about competing with China, we need to get serious about making the investments that will allow us to do so.
• There is no conflict between strong and smart. Even as we compete vigorously, we should not seek confrontation. Indeed, preventing conflict should be a major focus of U.S. diplomacy with Beijing.
• We should be confident in our system. Our democratic values set us apart from China; make us stronger at home; and more attractive as an ally and partner abroad.
• Our concern is the behavior of the Chinese government and Communist Party. As we pursue policies to address Beijing’s actions, we must make clear—in word and deed—that our focus is not ordinary Chinese or people of Chinese heritage.
• We need to talk. Our preeminent positions in the global economy; the complexity of the issues before us; and the consequential risks of misunderstanding require direct, regular U.S.-China senior-level exchanges by the administration and Congress.

The issues

What follows is not an effort to assess every aspect of the U.S.-China relationship; map out every connection between every issue; or respond to every headline. Instead, it is an attempt to define the overarching challenges we face in eight broad areas: trade, technology, climate change, military competition, Taiwan, human rights, China’s role in the world, and a cooperation agenda.

Trade: Decades of U.S. trade diplomacy aimed to right the impacts of China’s unfair trade practices have done little to correct the commercial imbalances, which contributed to deindustrialization in the United States and a hollowing of the American middle class

• China has a long legacy of conducting unfair trade practices such as massive export subsidies and state-sponsored intellectual property theft, as well as illegal activities like its use of forced labor. And we must take those on. But just blaming China obscures the impact of bad U.S. trade and economic policy decisions over the last several decades.
• We must make transformational investments in the U.S. industrial base and workers, focusing on sectors where we want to establish or maintain global leadership.
• Experience shows that China will not “play fair” or change its ways, so modernized enforcement tools will play a key role in a long-term, strategic competition.

Technology: Technology will be at the heart of U.S.-China competition, as semiconductors, AI, and other technologies reshape our economies and our militaries.

• The U.S. government needs to make transformational domestic investments in key technologies and our tech workforce. In addition, the United States needs tools and other resources to protect our existing advantages in critical technologies.
• The United States needs new general technology regulations and must work with foreign partners to set rules for the digital economy in line with democratic values.

Taiwan: Washington can manage Taiwan Strait tensions, even as China’s actions raise risks and concern—through military deterrence; direct engagement with Beijing; and continued diplomatic efforts to pull third countries into the conversation.

• We have an interest in Taiwan’s success given its status as a fellow democracy. Its dominance in advanced semiconductors also means we have a significant economic stake in Taiwan’s security.
• We should reinforce an equilibrium in which Taiwan improves its resiliency even as Beijing continues to believe there is a long-term path to “reunification.” This may leave all sides somewhat dissatisfied, but it is far preferable to the alternative.
• In concrete terms, that means the U.S. government—both the executive branch and Congress—should prioritize effectiveness and impact over symbolism and stunts.

Military competition: China is the only competitor to the United States with the intent and—increasingly—the capacity to reshape the global order. The United States faces the challenge of a rising China from a position of strength, even as China’s military grows.

• We can meet the military challenge without increasing the defense budget by capitalizing on existing strengths, spending smarter, and rethinking procurement.
• We must reinforce our alliances—a key security and geopolitical advantage.
• The United States needs to manage risks by maintaining dialogue with China’s military, including on emerging issues such as cyber and AI.

Human rights: China’s human rights situation has deteriorated markedly under Xi Jinping, even as China touts its “model” of autocratic governance abroad.

• We should shine light on China’s human rights abuses—as our values require us to do—while recognizing our influence on how Beijing treats its citizens may be limited.
• We need to push back firmly against the increasing incidence of transnational repression by Chinese officials, particularly when it happens in the United States.
• If the United States does not lead on human rights internationally, we cede the field to Beijing’s profoundly different—and illiberal—vision.

China’s role in the world: As China’s economic power has grown, so has its ambition to shape the global order to its liking. The United States needs to provide (and invest in) an alternative vision and help our allies and partners resist Chinese bad behavior.

• The United States is right to be concerned about China’s vision for the world and should push back against a Chinese model that makes people less free; drives up debt in the developing world; and undermines American interests.
• Our alliances multiply our influence and reduce the risk of conflict. We should help our partners resist coercion and strengthen their democratic institutions.
• The United States cannot just warn countries not to borrow from China; we need to offer real alternatives. It is impossible to beat something with nothing.

Climate change: The world will not avoid catastrophic climate change if China and the United States—the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters and technology leaders—do not lead by accelerating climate action. This requires cooperation, even as we compete.

• The United States, with its international political heft, technical expertise, and climate history with China needs to employ all levers to press China for stronger action.
• Policymakers will need to weigh climate, economic, and security benefits and risks of allowing Chinese products in the U.S. clean-energy transition. We need to prioritize the interests of American workers but full decoupling is not an option given China’s dominance over key technologies and supply chains.
• U.S.-China competition can be a positive force if we “race to the top” to meet our domestic—as well as the rest of the world’s—clean energy needs.

Cooperation: As the two most consequential countries in the world—and with certain shared interests—the United States should be confident in cooperating with China, especially when it advances U.S. interests, even as we compete in many areas.

• We cannot allow U.S.-China relations to be defined solely by competition. On issues such as stopping the flow of fentanyl and other illegal drugs, we need to cooperate when we can to advance U.S. national interests and the interests of ordinary Americans.
• Cooperating is a way to advance mutual interests—not to do favors for the other. It is against our interests to refuse to cooperate because we disagree with China about many things.

Meeting the central foreign policy challenge of the 21st century will require the United States to be smart and strong, to invest in itself, and to be ready to talk as well as to compete with China. CAP lays out a framework for policymakers and the public to rally around.

To read the full report as it was published by the Center for American Progress, click here.

The post A Progressive, Principled, and Pragmatic Approach Toward China Policy appeared first on WITA.

China has taken full advantage of its WTO rights. It has also largely ignored the responsibilities and commitments through its embrace of state-directed capitalism predicated upon an aggressive innovation mercantilism. This mercantilism denies foreign enterprises access to Chinese markets on reciprocal terms; distorts global markets, including for advanced-technology goods; and deprives nations of the benefits they believed they would receive when granting China accession into the community of trading nations.

In this report, China’s accession to the WTO is recounted along with the trade rules with which it fails to comply. The report also describes the economic benefits China has accrued in part by not complying with its WTO commitments. Lastly, it offers policy recommendations for policymakers from the United States and like-minded nations to address the continuing China trade challenge. Our initial 2015 Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) report on this topic, on which this report is based, is premised on China’s false promises to the WTO. Even with a full-scale Section 301 investigation initiated by the Trump administration, China has made little progress in fulfilling a wide range of its WTO commitments over the past two decades.

Stephen Ezell is vice president, global innovation policy, at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). He focuses on science and technology policy, international competitiveness, trade, manufacturing, and services issues.

To read the original report from the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, please visit here

The post False Promises II: The Continuing Gap Between China’s WTO Commitments and Its Practices appeared first on WITA.

The post Human Rights in China appeared first on WITA.

The post China’s system of oppression in Xinjiang: How it developed and how to curb it appeared first on WITA.

The post Addressing Forced Labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region: Toward a Shared Agenda appeared first on WITA.

The “Karakax List”, named after the county of Karakax (Qaraqash) in Hotan Prefecture, represents the most recent leaked government document from Xinjiang. Over 137 pages, 667 data rows and the personal details of over 3,000 Uyghurs, this remarkable document presents the strongest evidence to date that Beijing is actively persecuting and punishing normal practices of traditional religious beliefs, in direct violation of its own constitution.

Specifically, the Karakax List outlines the reasons why 311 persons were interned and reveals the cognition behind the decision-making processes as to whether individuals can be released or not. Based on the principles of presumed guilt (rather than innocence) and assigning guilt through association, the state has developed a highly fine-tuned yet also very labor-intensive governance system whereby entire family circles are held hostage to their behavioral performance – jointly and as individuals. Ongoing mechanisms of appraisal and evaluation ensure high levels of acquiescence even when most detainees have been released from the camps.

The detailed new information provided by this document also allows us to develop a more fine-grained understanding of the ideological and administrative processes that preceded the internment campaign. In particular, this research paper carefully reviews the sequence and timing of events during Chen Quanguo’s first seven months in the region. It is argued that Chen must have been installed by the central government, possibly during a meeting at the Two Sessions in Beijing in March 2016 where Xi Jinping, Chen, and Chen’s predecessor in Xinjiang, Zhang Chunxian, were all in the same place. It is argued that Chen’s role in Xinjiang has not so much been that of an innovator as it has been that of a highly driven and disciplined administrator, with a focus on drastically upscaling existing mechanisms of investigation, categorization and internment.

More than any other government document pertaining to Beijing’s extralegal campaign of mass internment, the Karakax List lays bare the ideological and administrative micromechanics of a system of targeted cultural genocide that arguably rivals any similar attempt in the history of humanity. Driven by a deeply religio-phobic worldview, Beijing has embarked on a project that, ideologically, isn’t far from a medieval witch-hunt, yet is being executed with administrative perfectionism and iron discipline. Being distrustful of the true intentions of its minority citizens, the state has established a system of governance that fully substitutes trust with control. That, however, is also set to become its greatest long-term liability. Xinjiang’s mechanisms of governance are both labor-intensive and predicated upon highly unequal power structures that often run along and increase ethnic fault lines. The long-term ramifications of this arrangement for social stability and ethnic relations are impossible to predict.

To read the original piece from the Journal of Political Risk, please click here

Dr. Adrian Zenz, senior fellow in China studies, victims of Communism Memorial Foundation 

The post The Karakax List: Dissecting the Anatomy of Beijing’s Internment Drive in Xinjiang appeared first on WITA.

Reforms to remove obstacles to women’s economic inclusion have been slow in many regions and uneven within them, according to Women, Business and the Law 2021. On average, women have just three-quarters of the legal rights afforded to men.  Women were already at a disadvantage before the pandemic, and government initiatives to buffer some of its effects, while innovative, have been limited in many countries, the report says.

“Women need to be fully included in economies in order to achieve better development outcomes,” said David Malpass, World Bank Group President. “Despite progress in many countries, there have been troubling reversals in a few, including restricting women’s travel without the permission of a male guardian. This pandemic has exacerbated existing inequalities that disadvantage girls and women, including barriers to attend school and maintain jobs. Women are also facing a rise in domestic violence and health and safety challenges. Women should have the same access to finance and the same rights to inheritance as men and must be at the center of our efforts toward an inclusive and resilient recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Women, Business and the Law 2021 measures the laws and regulations across 8 areas that affect women’s economic opportunities in 190 countries, covering the period from September 2019-October 2020. From the basics of movement in the community to the challenges of working, parenting, and retiring, the data offers objective and measurable benchmarks for global progress toward gender equality. Following the outbreak of the pandemic, this report also looks at government responses to the COVID-19 crisis and how the pandemic has impacted women at work and at home, focusing on childcare, access to justice, and health and safety.

Overall, the report finds that many governments have put in place measures to address some of the impacts of the pandemic on working women. For example, less than a quarter of all economies surveyed in the report legally guaranteed employed parents any time off for childcare before the pandemic. Since then, in light of school closures, nearly an additional 40 economies around the world have introduced leave or benefit policies to help parents with childcare. Even so, these measures are likely insufficient to address the challenges many working mothers already face, or the childcare crisis.

The pandemic has also contributed to a rise in both the severity and frequency of gender-based violence. Preliminary research shows that since early 2020, governments introduced about 120 new measures including hotlines, psychological assistance, and shelters to protect women from violence. Some governments also took steps to provide access to justice in several ways, including declaring family cases urgent during lockdown and allowing remote court proceedings for family matters. However, governments still have room to enact measures and policies aimed at addressing the root causes of this violence.

“While it is encouraging that many countries have proactively taken steps to help women navigate the pandemic, it’s clear that more work is needed, especially in improving parental leave and equalizing pay,” said Mari Pangestu, Managing Director of Development Policy and Partnerships, The World Bank.“Countries need to create a legal environment that enhances women’s economic inclusion, so that they can make the best choices for themselves and their families.”

Despite the pandemic, 27 economies in all regions and income groups enacted reforms across all areas and increased good practices in legislation in 45 cases during the year covered, the report found. The greatest number of reforms introduced or amended laws affecting pay and parenthood.

However, parenthood is also the area that leaves the most room for improvement globally. This includes  paid parental leave, whether benefits are administered by the government, and whether the dismissal of pregnant women is prohibited. Reforms are also needed to address the restrictions women face in the type of jobs, tasks, and hours they can work, segregating them into lower paid jobs. And in 100 economies, laws do not mandate that men and women be paid the same for equally valued jobs.

Achieving legal gender equality requires a concerted effort by governments, civil society, and international organizations, among others. But legal and regulatory reforms can serve as an important catalyst to improve the lives of women as well as their families and communities. Better performance in the areas measured by Women, Business and the Law is associated with narrowing the gender gap in development outcomes, higher female labor force participation, lower vulnerable employment, and greater representation of women in national parliaments.

To read the full report from The World Bank Group, please click here

The post Women, Business and the Law 2020 appeared first on WITA.